Comments of
Joseph Bast, President of
The Heartland Institute
on New Source Review
Reform
Respectfully submitted to
be placed on the record
in connection with the
joint hearing on July 16, 2002 of
the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works
and the Senate Judiciary
Committee
Submitted by:
Joseph L. Bast
President
The Heartland Institute
19 South LaSalle, Suite
903
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 312/377-4000
Email: jbast@heartland.org
To: Chairman James Jeffords, U.S. Senator from
Vermont
Chairman Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senator from Vermont
Gentlemen:
I respectfully add my
voice to those of many who believe the New Source Review Program requires
substantial and immediate reform.
The Heartland Institute
is a national nonprofit research and education organization based in Chicago.
Since our founding in 1984, we have produced research and commentary on a wide
range of public policy issues, including environmental policy. Since 1998,
Heartland has published Environment & Climate News, a monthly
newspaper devoted to covering environmental news.
Because of the importance
of New Source Review reform, I assembled a three- person team to study the
Environmental Protection Agency=s June 13, 2002, New Source Review: Report to the
President, and to produce a Heartland Policy Study evaluating its
findings and recommendations. The team consisted of Heartland=s Science Director, Dr.
Jay H. Lehr, editor of McGraw-Hill=s Standard Handbook of Environmental Science,
Health, and Technology (2000); the managing editor of Environment &
Climate News, James Taylor; and myself. My bio and Dr. Lehr=s appear at the end of
these comments; past issues of Environment & Climate News featuring
Mr. Taylor=s reporting can be found
on Heartland=s Web site at www.heartland.org.
Our complete evaluation
runs to some 23 pages and can also be viewed on The Heartland Institute=s Web site at www.heartland.org. Printed copies are available by
calling 312/377-4000. We found:
<
EPA
accurately described instances where current NSR policy has discouraged
investments needed to improve productivity and plant safety, even when those
investments would reduce emissions of pollutants.
<
EPA=s recommended reforms
would remove counterproductive policies without harming air quality.
<
EPA=s recommendations and
some of the ideas that apparently will be part of President Bush=s AClear Skies Initiative@ represent progress in
bringing one of the nation=s least effective environmental regulations up-to-date.
Following is a more
complete summary of our evaluation.
What the Report to the
President says
EPA=s Report to the
President summarizes extensive public comments and previous EPA reviews of
NSR enforcement policies, along with case studies showing how current NSR
enforcement policies have had negative effects on businesses, workers,
consumers, and the environment. EPA identified three areas where reform is
needed:
<
EPA=s uncertain and increasingly
narrow interpretation of the Aroutine maintenance, repair and
replacement@ exclusion.
Consistent with Congress=s intent, EPA until 1999
generally excluded Aroutine maintenance,
repair and replacement@ (RMR&R) activities
from the NSR permitting process. As early as 1988, though, EPA began to
challenge the meaning of Aroutine,@ subjecting or
threatening to subject more activities to NSR than before.
The Report to the
President concludes that Aconcern about the scope of the routine maintenance exclusion
is having an adverse impact on [utility] projects that affect availability,
reliability, efficiency, and safety.@ Concerning nonutility companies, EPA says Aconcern about the scope
of the routine maintenance exclusion is having an adverse impact on industries
outside the energy sector. It also is credible to conclude that projects have
been discouraged that might have been economically and/or environmentally
beneficial without increasing actual emissions.@
<
EPA=s substitution of Aactual-to-future-potential@ for Aactual-to-future-actual@ in estimating likely
changes in emissions.
In 1996, EPA changed the
way it estimates the effect of facility modifications on emissions for
nonutility emitters from Aactual-to-future-actual@ to Aactual-to-future-potential,@ which means the decision
to apply NSR is determined by the emitter=s Apotential to emit@ rather than the actual change in
emissions likely to occur.
In its Report to the
President, EPA concluded Athe current NSR program is having an adverse impact on energy
efficiency by discouraging projects that may improve energy efficiency, or may
increase capacity and reliability without actually increasing pollutant
emissions. In some cases it may be discouraging projects that decrease
emissions because of the >actual-to-potential= test used for these
industries.@
< Emissions from
de-bottlenecking and aggregation.
Originally, EPA ruled
that only the direct effect on emissions from the unit being modified would be
considered in determining whether an NSR permit was required. More recently,
EPA has moved to a more expansive definition under which ancillary increases in
emissions from unmodified but Ade-bottlenecked@ units must be included. EPA is also combining
separate projects and claiming the aggregate effect on emissions is sufficient
to trigger NSR.
EPA=s reform recommendations
When it released its Report
to the President, EPA also issued seven recommendations for NSR reform. The
first four were proposed by the Clinton administration in 1996 but never
implemented:
<
Plantwide
Applicability Limits (PALs). Regulated emitters would be allowed to modify
their plants without obtaining a major NSR permit provided their emissions do
not exceed a plantwide cap based on an actual emissions baseline. Such APlantwide applicability
limits@ (PALs) would effectively
expand the RMR&R exclusion and resolve conflicts over de-bottlenecking.
<
AClean unit@ exclusion. Regulated emitters who
achieved federal BACT or LAER control levels or comparable state minor source
BACT since 1990 would be entitled to a Aclean unit exclusion@ from NSR. A clean unit
would trigger NSR only if permitted allowable emissions increase.
<
Exclusion
for pollution control and prevention projects. Modifications that
result in a net overall reduction in air pollutants, including when an emitter
switches to a cleaner-burning fuel, would be excluded from NSR, subject to
certain conditions. Caps on emissions under the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards program and other programs would remain in place.
<
Return
to actual-to-future-actual methodology. The Aactual-to-future-potential@ emissions test would be
replaced with the previously used (and still used for utilities) Aactual-to-future-actual@ test, which is a more
realistic calculation of future emissions. Only emission increases caused by a
given modification would be considered. The baseline for calculating current
actual emissions would be the highest consecutive 24-month period within the
immediately preceding 10 years.
Three additional reforms
of NSR recommended by EPA would need to go through the formal rulemaking
procedure (including public comment) before being implemented. They are:
<
More
objective definition of the RMR&R exclusion. EPA proposes to set
cost-based thresholds below which projects would automatically qualify for the
RMR&R exclusion. The thresholds would be set on an industry-by-industry
basis and would exclude costs incurred for installing and maintaining pollution
control technology.
<
De-bottlenecking. EPA proposes to clarify
that, when calculating actual emissions associated with a modification,
emitters generally will need to look only at the unit undergoing the change.
Emissions from units Aupstream@ or Adownstream@ of the unit being
changed would be considered only when the permitted emissions limit of the
upstream or downstream unit would be exceeded or increased.
<
Aggregation. EPA proposes to consider
modifications to be separate and independent projects unless they are dependent
upon another project to be economically or technically viable or the project
has been intentionally split from other projects to avoid NSR. EPA says it Agenerally would defer to
the States to implement the Agency=s aggregation rule.@
Evaluation of EPA=s recommendations
Since 1980, EPA has
released some 4,000 pages of Aguidance@ and produced many (often conflicting) letters and several
proposals for NSR revision, none of them finalized. Testimony to EPA contains
many reports by industry spokespersons alleging that EPA has frequently and
substantially changed its enforcement policies without going through the formal
(and legally required) rulemaking procedure, causing considerable uncertainty
within the regulated community.
We found these reports to
be credible and uncertainty to be justified. Current policies plainly have the
unintended consequences of discouraging worthwhile investments and maintenance
activities that would benefit companies and consumers as well as the
environment. Many of these investments and activities were once correctly
understood to be outside the scope of NSR, and ought once again be put beyond
NSR=s reach.
EPA=s recent enforcement of
policy reinterpretations has forced companies to count imaginary emissions from
previously unused capacity in determining whether a repair or other moderation
would cause a significant increase in emissions. As a result, under current
rules most repair projects would trigger a full New Source Review, even if
actual emissions decrease as a result of the modification. Given the
cost of complying with the NSR permitting process, many companies choose not to
upgrade and modernize plants or even make routine changes and repairs.
Efficiency improvements that would have reduced emissions and energy
consumption or improved worker or community safety have been foregone.
The NSR policy changes
recommended by EPA, if put into practice, would not compromise air quality. We
are skeptical that NSR has had a major positive effect on air quality since
1977, since air quality was improving prior to that year and other air quality
regulations were responsible for much larger emission reductions than can be
traced to the NSR program. Predictions that NSR reform would result in
substantial increases in emissions strike us as partisan rhetoric, not
analysis. The air quality goals and standards for protecting public health and
the environment remain intact, and those aspects of the current program that
unintentionally increase emissions by discouraging investments in energy
efficiency would be avoided.
EPA=s proposals would fix some
of the biggest problems encountered by an aging, inefficient, and expensive
environmental regulatory program. Replacing the program outright as it affects
utilities with the AClear Skies Initiative,@ as also proposed by the
Bush administration, would be a further step in the right direction, though
judgment must be reserved until legislation for the Initiative is made public.
The country would be
better served if NSR were changed to clarify and make more certain the scope of
the routine maintenance exclusion and the method used to measure future
emissions. Even better would be a move away from the costly and often
counterproductive style of end-of-the-pipe regulation represented by NSR.
Conclusion
Everyone agrees that
clean air is one of the most important rights of American citizens and goals of
national environmental policy. The failure to apply common sense to the New
Source Review program, though, has burdened American consumers and American
industry with higher economic costs and higher levels of pollution than were
envisioned by Congress when it wrote the Clean Air Act amendments of 1977. As
EPA itself now admits on pages 31-32 of its Report to the President,
Our findings in this
report ratify a longstanding and broadly‑held belief that parts of the
NSR program can and should be improved. For example, we conclude above that
changes to NSR that add to the clarity and certainty of the scope of the
routine maintenance exclusion will improve the program by reducing the
unintended consequences of discouraging worthwhile projects that are in fact
outside the scope of NSR.
NSR was adopted at a time
when forecasts of a Apost-industrial era@ were naively thought to
justify anti-manufacturing policies. Balancing costs against benefits was
thought to be unnecessary, and the effects of regulations on the incentives of
regulators and members of the regulated community alike were poorly understood
and often dismissed as unimportant.
Since 1977, air quality,
technology, and regulatory theory have improved dramatically, creating new
opportunities to more cost-effectively protect air quality. Investors, too,
have rediscovered the inherent value of companies that manufacture real goods
and services, and the negative impact that defective regulations can have on
global competitiveness.
It is entirely
appropriate, at this time in U.S. history, to re-examine the rules and
regulations known to be ineffective or damaging to the manufacturing sector of
the country=s economy. EPA=s recommendations and the
Bush administration=s Clear Skies Initiative
are good places to start, but they do not mark the end of the need for reform.
Thank you for this
opportunity to submit my comments to the record. Please do not hesitate to
contact me or members of my staff if I can be of any assistance to your
Committees or to you and your staffs.
Joseph L. Bast
President
The Heartland Institute
July 16, 2002
Brief biographies of
Joseph Bast and Dr. Jay Lehr follow.
Heartland Biographies
Joseph L. Bast
President and CEO
Joseph Bast is President and CEO of
The Heartland Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan center for public policy
research located in Chicago, Illinois. He was the first employee of this organization
when it started in 1984, and has overseen its growth from an annual budget in
1984 of $20,000 to spending and receipts of approximately $2 million in 2002.
Mr. Bast founded and was
editor and publisher of Intellectual Ammunition, a bimonthly public
policy magazine, as well as three monthly publications: School Reform News,
Environment & Climate News, and Health Care News. All four
publications are sent to all 8,000 state and national elected officials in the
U.S., as well as to tens of thousands of grassroots activists nationwide.
Mr. Bast has cowritten or
edited six books, including Eco-Sanity: A Common-Sense Guide to
Environmentalism (1994, 1996), which won the Sir Antony Fisher
International Memorial Award. His writing has appeared in The Wall Street
Journal, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Crain=s Chicago Business, Investor=s Business Daily, and elsewhere.
A popular public speaker,
Bast has addressed the National Conference of State Legislatures, Southern
Legislative Conference, the Annual Clean Coal Technology Conference, National
Order of Women Legislators Conference, Grocery Manufacturers Association/Food
Marketing Institute Environmental Affairs Conference, Keep America Beautiful=s Annual Convention, the
Rotary Club of Rockford, Illinois (the world=s largest Rotary Club) and Rotary One in Chicago
(the world=s first Rotary Club).
Mr. Bast has been
recognized frequently for his contributions to public policy research and debate, including being named one of
"The 88 to Watch in 1988" by the Chicago Tribune; recipient of
the 1994 Roe Award from the State Policy Network; commissioned a Kentucky
Colonel by Gov. Paul E. Patton on June 19, 1996; recipient of the 1996 Sir
Antony Fisher International Memorial Award for Eco-Sanity: A Common-Sense
Guide to Environmentalism (with coauthors); and recipient of the 1998 Eagle
Award from Eagle Forum.
Heartland
Biographies
Dr. Jay H. Lehr
Science Director
Dr. Jay Lehr is Science Director of
The Heartland Institute, an independent nonprofit organization based in
Chicago. He is an internationally renowned speaker, scientist, and author who
has testified before Congress on more than three dozen occasions on
environmental issues, and consulted with nearly every agency of the federal
government and with many foreign countries.
Dr. Lehr is a leading
authority on groundwater hydrology. After graduating from Princeton University
at the age of 20 with a degree in Geological Engineering, he went on to receive
the nation=s first Ph.D. in
Groundwater Hydrology from the University of Arizona. He later became Executive
Director of the National Water Well Association and the Association of
Groundwater Scientists and Engineers.
Dr. Lehr is the author of
over 400 magazine and journal articles and 12 books. He is editor of Rational
Readings on Environmental Concerns, a 900-page textbook now in its third
printing. He recently edited McGraw-Hill=s Handbook on Environmental Science, Health
and Technology (2000), a major and highly respected reference work.